Governance of the Security Sector in Libya

(Critical Analysis and Proposed Strategies). 

By: Nesralla Elshaibani 

Executive Summary 

This study provides an in-depth analysis of security sector governance in Libya, focusing on current challenges and offering practical recommendations for policymakers. 

Effective security sector governance is a fundamental pillar for building a sovereign and stable state, especially within the context of conflict that Libya is experiencing. 

The study explores the concept of security sector governance and its dimensions, analyzes the current Libyan security landscape, and reviews the core challenges facing reform. It also proposes a specific Libyan approach based on successful international models, defines implementation mechanisms and success indicators, and outlines proactive solutions and potential risks. 

1. Conceptual Framework for Security Sector Governance 

Security Sector Governance (SSG) is defined as the political and administrative practices for managing security affairs within a state, ensuring the provision of security to citizens in accordance with the principles of accountability, transparency, respect for human rights, the rule of law, and sovereignty. SSG goes beyond mere operational efficiency of security agencies to encompass the broader framework that determines how these agencies operate, who oversees them, and how they are held accountable. SSG has multiple dimensions, including institutional, legal, oversight, and societal aspects. 

The institutional dimension relates to the organizational structure of security agencies, defining their mandates and their subordination to elected civilian authorities, with the aim of building professional and unified security institutions that operate within a clear legal framework. 

The legal dimension includes the policies and legislative frameworks that regulate the work of security agencies, defining their duties and rights, while ensuring their compliance with national laws, the constitution, and international human rights standards. 

The oversight dimension includes accountability mechanisms and the supervision exercised by civilian authorities and civil society over the security sector to ensure transparency and prevent abuses. 

The societal dimension focuses on the relationship between the security sector and society, including building trust and enhancing community participation. 

Good security governance is essential for the protection of human rights. The absence of oversight and accountability can lead to grave violations of fundamental freedoms. 

When security agencies operate according to the principles of accountability and transparency, they contribute to fostering an environment where the dignity of individuals is preserved and human rights are respected. Furthermore, security governance is closely linked to state legitimacy. 

A state that fails to provide security to its citizens, or allows its security agencies to operate outside the framework of the law, loses a significant part of its legitimacy. The state's monopoly on legitimate violence, when directed towards serving the public good, is the fundamental social contract upon which the modern state is built. 

When this capacity weakens, state legitimacy erodes, and the risks of instability increase.

2. Current Landscape of the Security Sector in Libya: An Institutional Analysis 

The security landscape in Libya presents an extremely complex challenge, characterized by fragmentation, multiplicity, and the absence of effective central control. Since 2011, the country has witnessed a significant erosion of traditional security institutions and the emergence of a large number of armed groups that have become an integral part of the security fabric. 

The Libyan security sector is primarily divided between the east and west of the country, leading to conflicting loyalties and dual leadership. In addition to the traditional police and army, numerous armed groups have emerged, operating under various designations, whose mandates overlap and compete for influence and resources. 

The scene lacks a unified, effective national security leadership capable of imposing its control over all armed groups and agencies, which hinders any efforts to unify and reform the sector. 

The multiplicity of security entities leads to conflicts in responsibilities and roles, creating security chaos and weakening the state's ability to effectively enforce the law.

Furthermore, many armed groups have been nominally integrated into state structures but retain their factional loyalties and operate outside the scope of central control, which hinders the building of national security institutions and fuels the war economy. 

The security agencies also suffer from severe weakness in parliamentary and civilian oversight, which opens the door to human rights violations and corruption. 

The security sector lacks transparency in spending and budgets, making it difficult to track allocated funds. Security agencies are also used as tools in political conflicts, undermining their professionalism and neutrality.

Despite these challenges, there are still professional and qualified cadres within the security agencies, police, and army who possess the desire and experience to build national security institutions. There is also widespread popular desire for building a state, achieving stability, and unifying security institutions. 

Libya can also obtain international support for security sector reform efforts from international organizations and countries with experience in this field.

3. Key Challenges 

The process of security sector governance in Libya faces a set of fundamental challenges that hinder efforts to build and reform unified and strong security institutions. 

Challenge Description and Impact Institutional Duality and Fragmentation 

The multiplicity of security entities and overlapping mandates lead to difficulties in applying the law, weak coordination, and fragmented leadership, posing a significant challenge to building a cohesive security structure and unifying the sector. 

Absence of Civilian Oversight

Weak parliamentary and civilian oversight fosters a culture of impunity and prevents accountability, allowing security agencies to operate in isolation from the political will of the people. 

Challenge Description and Impact  Lack of Transparency in Funding:

The absence of transparency in security sector funding fuels corruption and allows armed groups to benefit from state resources without oversight, hindering the building of professional security institutions that rely on clear budgets. 

Political Interference:

The use of security agencies as tools in political conflicts leads to the politicization of the security sector and undermines its professionalism and neutrality, weakening loyalty to the state over tribal and partisan loyalties. 

Proliferation of Weapons: 

The widespread proliferation of weapons outside state control poses a significant security challenge, making it easier for armed groups to maintain their influence and complicating the process of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR). 

Absence of Transitional Justice:

The failure to address transitional justice issues and hold those responsible for past violations accountable contributes to the continued role of armed groups and undermines trust in new security institutions. 

4. Exemplary International Governance Frameworks and Practices

Libya can draw inspiration from successful international experiences in security sector reform, especially those that have gone through similar circumstances of conflict or transition. In South Africa, after the end of apartheid in 1994, the country faced a huge challenge in integrating competing armed forces into a unified national army. 

The experience was characterized by strong political leadership that played a decisive role in defining a clear vision for a new security sector and guiding the integration process. All parties involved in the integration process were engaged, with a focus on building trust and reconciliation. 

A new security doctrine was developed, focusing on protecting the constitution, human rights, and serving all citizens instead of serving a specific regime. Strong mechanisms for parliamentary and civilian oversight over the security sector were established to ensure accountability and transparency. 

In Germany, after World War II, the country rebuilt its armed forces based on a unique model known as "Innere Führung" (Inner Leadership). 

This model aims to integrate the armed forces into a democratic society, ensuring that the soldier is a "citizen in uniform". The German parliament has strong oversight powers over the army, and soldiers are trained on human rights and democratic values. 

There is also an independent parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces who receives complaints from soldiers and investigates violations of their rights, while enhancing transparency in the army's work to ensure public trust. 

Canada is an example of a country with a strong civilian oversight system over intelligence agencies. Specialized parliamentary committees oversee the work of intelligence agencies and review their activities.

There are also independent review bodies that evaluate the performance of intelligence agencies and ensure their compliance with the law. Periodic reports are published on the activities of intelligence agencies, with due regard for maintaining the confidentiality of 4 sensitive information. 

The focus is on protecting the privacy of citizens and ensuring that their rights are not violated by intelligence agencies. 

5. A Specific Libyan Approach: Context Analysis and Phased Reform 

Strategies Reforming the security sector in Libya requires a specific approach that takes into account the unique political, security, cultural, and social context of the country. International models cannot be applied verbatim but must be adapted to suit the Libyan reality. 

The political context is characterized by the absence of a centralized government and the fragmentation of authority, with political factions competing for influence, which makes it difficult to achieve consensus on a unified vision for the security sector.

The security context is marked by the proliferation of weapons, the presence of powerful armed groups, the weakness of traditional security institutions, and the overlap of roles between different entities. 

Tribal and regional loyalties play a significant role in shaping allegiances within security agencies, and the culture of the "revolution" still influences individuals' perceptions of the role of armed forces. The reform process must proceed in phases, focusing on building trust and achieving quick wins to enhance legitimacy. 

Phase One: Building Consensus and Trust (0-12 months): This phase begins with holding a comprehensive national dialogue involving all active parties to discuss a unified vision for the security sector and define its governance principles and a national security doctrine. 

This should coincide with conducting a comprehensive survey of armed groups, classifying them, and initiating dialogue with them about their future.

Additionally, rapid trust-building measures must be implemented, such as releasing political detainees and forming independent investigation committees for human rights violations and providing basic services to citizens. Initial civilian oversight should be activated through the formation of a temporary parliamentary committee to oversee the security sector and activating the role of the Audit Bureau in reviewing security spending. 

Phase Two: Unifying Structures and Capacity Building (1-3 years): This phase focuses on integrating multiple security agencies into unified structures under a single central command.

This must be done in a deliberate and gradual manner to avoid any escalation. Comprehensive Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) programs for combatants will be launched.

Security cadres will be qualified and trained on the principles of human rights, the rule of law, and sovereignty, in addition to technical and operational aspects. Legislation related to the security sector will be reviewed and updated to ensure its compliance with international human rights standards. 

Phase Three: Enhancing Governance and Accountability (3-5 years) This phase aims to strengthen the role of parliament in overseeing the security sector and activating the role of the judiciary in holding those responsible for any violations accountable.

Principles of transparency in security sector budgets will be applied, and periodic reports on its performance will be published, along with a clear system for contracts and procurements to ensure the absence of corruption. Civil society organizations will be encouraged to monitor the security sector and provide recommendations. The judicial system will also be reformed, including prisons, to ensure justice and fairness for all. 

6. Mechanisms of Implementation and Distribution of Roles

To ensure the success of the security sector governance process in Libya, clear implementation mechanisms and a distribution of responsibilities and roles among various active parties must be defined.

Active Party Responsibilities and Roles Parliament (Legislative Authority): Forming specialized parliamentary committees to oversee security agencies, updating and issuing laws that regulate their work, reviewing security sector budgets, and approving the appointment of senior leaders in the security sector to ensure neutrality and efficiency. 

Government (Executive Authority): Developing national strategies and policies for the security sector, ensuring effective coordination between various security agencies and unifying their efforts under a central leadership, allocating necessary human and financial resources for the security sector, and implementing training and qualification programs for security cadres efficiently and transparently. 

Civil Society Organizations 

Monitoring human rights violations, documenting and submitting reports and recommendations, advocating for security sector reforms among policymakers, raising public awareness about the importance of security governance, accountability, and transparency, and providing technical support and training to security cadres in human rights and international law. 

Key performance indicators (KPIs) must be developed to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of security agencies, and periodic reports on their performance should be published. Independent bodies must also be established to investigate complaints against security agencies and ensure the prosecution of those responsible for any violations. 

Transparent administrative and financial systems must be applied for managing security sector budgets, including contracts and procurements, with regular internal and external audits to ensure the absence of corruption. 

7. Success Indicators 

To evaluate the success of the security sector governance process in Libya, clear qualitative and quantitative success indicators must be defined. 

Quantitative indicators include: a decrease in the number of armed groups operating outside state control, an increase in the percentage of security budgets subject to review and audit by the Audit Bureau and Parliament, a decrease in the number of complaints related to human rights violations by security agencies, and an increase in the percentage of citizens who trust the performance of security agencies and feel safe. 

Qualitative indicators include: an improvement in the level of training and adherence to neutrality, avoiding politicization within security agencies, the extent of Parliament's and civil  society's ability to exercise effective oversight over the security sector, the level of transparency and accountability in providing information about the security sector's work, an improvement in 

the relationship between citizens and security agencies and an increase in mutual trust, and the extent to which all security agencies adopt a unified national doctrine focused on protecting the state and citizens.

8. Proactive Solutions and Potential Risks

The process of security sector governance in Libya faces several risks that must be addressed with proactive solutions. 

Potential Risk Proactive Solutions 

Resistance from Armed 

Groups to Reform 

Providing social and economic incentives for combatants, diplomacy and dialogue with group leaders, and imposing sanctions on those obstructing reform. 

External Interventions 

Strengthening Libyan diplomacy, building political alliances to support reform, and working with the United Nations to impose a comprehensive arms embargo. 

Building the capacity of the Libyan state to reduce reliance on external support. 

Absence of Political Will Community and popular pressure to support reform, building broad political alliances that support reform, and the role of the international community in supporting parties committed to reform. 

Corruption Activating administrative and financial oversight mechanisms, tightening sanctions on corrupt individuals, enhancing transparency in budgets and procurements, and supporting independent oversight bodies. 

Human Rights Violations Training security cadres on human rights, activating judicial accountability mechanisms, supporting civil society organizations to monitor violations, and establishing a national human rights commission. 

References 

[1]. Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF). (n.d.). Security Sector Governance and Reform: Social Type and Security. Available at: 

https://www.dcaf.ch/sites/default/files/publications/documents/GSToolkit_Tool-1%20AR.pdf 

[2]. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). (n.d.). Security Sector Governance and Reform. Available at: https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/2/4/512470

_0.pdf 

[3]. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2015, June 18). Crumbling States: Security Sector Reform in Libya and Yemen. Available at: 

https://carnegieendowment.org/ar/research/2015/06/crumbling-states-security-sector-reform-

in-libya-and-yemen 

[4]. United Nations. (2015, August 12). Rule of Law - Governance. Available at: 

https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/ar/thematic-areas/governance/

[5]. Springer Nature. (2023, February 16). State Legitimacy. Available at: 

https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-74319-6_135 

[6]. Salem, N. (2025). Libya in Transition: Governance Challenges and Civil Society Prospects in 

Political and Economic Reforms. Available at: 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2025.2449614 

[7]. ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project). (2025, May 16). Political 

Competition and Internal Fighting Among Armed Groups in Tripoli Extends Beyond the Capital. 

Available at: 

https://acleddata.com/ar/report/altnafs-alsyasy-walaqttal-aldakhly-byn-aljmaat-almslht-fy-

trabls-ymtd-ma-bd-alasmt-allybyt 

[8]. Asharq News. (2025, May 20). What is Happening in Libya? The Barrel Reshapes the Map of 

Influence. Available at: 

https://asharq.com/politics/136062/ 

[9]. ESCWA. (n.d.). Libya: Country Risk Analysis. Available at:  

https://www.unescwa.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pdf/country-risk-analysis-libya-english.pdf 

[10]. Benk Journal. (2025, April 1). Internal and External Challenges and Their Impact on National 

Security in Libya. Available at:  

https://www.benkjournal.com/article/download/1443/1094/2455 

[11]. Algerian Platform for Scientific Journals. (2025, June 5). Governance Challenges of State 

Institutions in Libya. Available at: 

https://asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/270480 

[12]. The World Bank. (n.d.). Proceedings of the Libya Local Governance Forum. Available at:  

https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/59be349cf19f6c1e1e32980078f26d5a-

0280012021/original/ARA-Libya-LGF-proceedings.pdf 

[13]. Chatham House. (2025, December 17). Escaping the Cycle of Conflict in Libya: Lessons from 

Other Countries. Available at: 

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/12/escaping-cycle-conflict-libya/05-lessons-other-

countries 

[14]. Deutschland.de. (2025, November 11). Bundeswehr and Democracy: Internal Values for the 

Army. Available at: 

https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/bundeswehr-innere-fuehrung 

[15]. Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF). (n.d.). Measuring Security Sector 

Governance. Available at:  

https://www.dcaf.ch/sites/default/files/publications/documents/OP_20_SCHROEDER_FO

RM.pdf 

[16]. Al-Sawani, M. Y. (2017). Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration and Security Sector 

Reform: Challenges of State Building for Militias in Libya. Available at:  

https://online.ucpress.edu/caa/article-abstract/10/2/171/3679

[17]. United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. (n.d.). Security Sector Reform. Available at:  

https://peacekeeping.un.org/ar/security-sector-reform 

[18]. Al Marsad. (2022, February 27). What is Required from Europeans for Security Sector Reform 

in Libya: An Analytical Study. Available at: 

https://almarsad.co/2022/02/27/